Banned
Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:08 PM
Don't disagree at all with that. But some think that going for it regardless of the play call was a bad decision. That I disagree with.
Its not just because of the poor playcall either. I didn't feel comfortable going for it there regardless. We needed any points at that point with the way things were going. its not like it appeared GB was going to be great offensively. The points were at a premium there. Know the situation. The playcall just made it that much worse.
Banned
Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:10 PM
BTW,......another situation where hindsight says we should have opened things up, went no huddle, pushed the peddle and put the ball in Flaccos hands sooner. Complete opposite of the Buffalo game and the criticism in it. Its all about feel.
Dilutis was right, putting the ball in Joes hands was the right play in that game despite the outcome and 5 picks. Same thing today.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:11 PM
Don't disagree at all with that. But some think that going for it regardless of the play call was a bad decision. That I disagree with.
Right.
If you are a good team, you will do something with that situation. You may score a touchdown. You may get a safety on the opposing drive. You may use the great field position to get three or seven points on your next drive. There is enough good that could happen no matter the outcome (short a TD return, of course) that you risk the three points.
If you are a bad team...well, those three points aren't likely to help you much anyhow.
My God, though, run a worthwhile goddamn play!
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:14 PM
The worst part about the 4 consecutive runs there was that it was a fade in the end zone to Torrey which drew the defensive holding and set up the 1st & goal to begin with. They should have kept attacking that way.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:19 PM
I've got no doubt that it was absolutely the right decision to go for it on that 4th down. I'm not even going to give Harbaugh too much credit for the decision, because it was such a slam dunk.
Playcalling on the series could have been different for sure, but it's always the right decision to go for it rather than kick an 18-yard field goal in the first half. There is really no situation where that rule has an exception, aside from perhaps the final play of the half since you don't have the silver lining of pinning the opponent crazy deep if you happen to not get the ball back.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:21 PM
The worst part about the 4 consecutive runs there was that it was a fade in the end zone to Torrey which drew the defensive holding and set up the 1st & goal to begin with. They should have kept attacking that way.
Right.
Keith Mills made the comparison tonight to the Houston game last year, saying if Flacco throws an interception there people are even more apoplectic. Which is a good point, but you can't just act scared there if you think your offense is any good. Especially when, as Ricker said, the pass was what put you in that position while you couldn't run the ball at all.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:38 PM
Something I thought about at the end of the game, and I didn't get to fit it in on the show we just finished. This definitely is not the reason why the Ravens lost the game. But I think they would have gotten the ball back with a chance to win had Ray Lewis been out there. On the pass Finley took 50 some yards, and the nice run Lacy had which put it away, both time Rodgers read the defense, adjusted the play, and the Ravens D didn't adjust back. Ray would have played the chess game, barked something out and shifted the D accordingly. Would it have worked? Would it have forced GB to go 3 and out and give Joe another shot? Who knows?
Ray Lewis has big shoes to fill, but someones got to recognize the audibles and shift the defense or else the opposition will have their way.
Banned
Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:57 PM
Something I thought about at the end of the game, and I didn't get to fit it in on the show we just finished. This definitely is not the reason why the Ravens lost the game. But I think they would have gotten the ball back with a chance to win had Ray Lewis been out there. On the pass Finley took 50 some yards, and the nice run Lacy had which put it away, both time Rodgers read the defense, adjusted the play, and the Ravens D didn't adjust back. Ray would have played the chess game, barked something out and shifted the D accordingly. Would it have worked? Would it have forced GB to go 3 and out and give Joe another shot? Who knows?
Ray Lewis has big shoes to fill, but someones got to recognize the audibles and shift the defense or else the opposition will have their way.
I think that's part of the reason why the Ravens are getting gashed with some big plays too. When the playcall is right and our players win we look really good on defense and the truth is we win a lot. The problem is when we don't win, we are getting gashed on big plays. We can be set up pretty easily because we don't call a lot of defensive audibles.
Banned
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:01 PM
Words cant describe how bad our run game is right now. We averaged 2.1 a carry today and it really was even worse than that. Pierce and Rice both really only got yards late in the 4th after GB went up 13 and started playing the pass. Absolutely no running lanes until they started playing pass. The last two drives we were able to do ok but that was not really us. that was GB getting softer at the point of attack.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:08 PM
I've got no doubt that it was absolutely the right decision to go for it on that 4th down. I'm not even going to give Harbaugh too much credit for the decision, because it was such a slam dunk.
Playcalling on the series could have been different for sure, but it's always the right decision to go for it rather than kick an 18-yard field goal in the first half. There is really no situation where that rule has an exception, aside from perhaps the final play of the half since you don't have the silver lining of pinning the opponent crazy deep if you happen to not get the ball back.
Owner
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:14 PM
e]
This just makes zero sense....this sounds like someone who has zero feel for the game and the situation at hand.
To act as if 3 points are meaningless is just dumb.
I would have preferred to take the points... but I wasn't upset over going for it, just didn't like the call. Where I disagree with Mackus is the idea that it is always the right call to go for it. The reason I wanted to kick it today, was that I thought the risk of getting nothing there was greater than the potential reward of getting the TD.
Interesting argument though. I'm guessing someone has done a study on the percentages.
I Miss McNulty
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:15 PM
e]
This just makes zero sense....this sounds like someone who has zero feel for the game and the situation at hand.
To act as if 3 points are meaningless is just dumb.
There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note
"Now OPS sucks. Got it."
"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."
"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty
@bopper33
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:15 PM
e]
This just makes zero sense....this sounds like someone who has zero feel for the game and the situation at hand.
To act as if 3 points are meaningless is just dumb.
Nobody said three points are meaningless. No need to get personal or put words in peoples' mouths.
The advantage of getting seven points, and the downside of pinning the Packers back and likely getting good field position on the next possession, is worth the risk of not getting those three points.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:16 PM
I would have preferred to take the points... but I wasn't upset over going for it, just didn't like the call. Where I disagree with Mackus is the idea that it is always the right call to go for it. The reason I wanted to kick it today, was that I thought the risk of getting nothing there was greater than the potential reward of getting the TD.
Interesting argument though. I'm guessing someone has done a study on the percentages.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:19 PM
Mackus basically said the points are meaningless because you should never kick an 18 yard FG in the first half.Nobody said three points are meaningless. No need to get personal or put words in peoples' mouths.
The advantage of getting seven points, and the downside of pinning the Packers back and likely getting good field position on the next possession, is worth the risk of not getting those three points.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:20 PM
He's not saying 3 points are meaningless, he's saying 7 points are more meaningful than 3. I agree with him.
At that point in the game, if you can't get a yard on 4 tries you deserve to lose.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:21 PM
Yes, 7 is more than 3...that's very true.
But 3 is more than 0 and 3 was essentially guaranteed...7 wasn't.
Well, my issue there more than anything, was that 0 was basically guaranteed given our goal line approach there.
I Miss McNulty
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:22 PM
The Ravens offense was awful at that point...GB wasn't going up and down the field
There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note
"Now OPS sucks. Got it."
"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."
"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty
@bopper33
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:27 PM
Well, my issue there more than anything, was that 0 was basically guaranteed given our goal line approach there.
HOF
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:28 PM
Sounds like an argument in favor of going for 7.
Exactly what I was going to say.
The Ravens aren't doing anything, so they need to take advantage and get the most points they can. If they run a decent playcall they probably score.
The Packers aren't doing anything, so if the Ravens fail to take advantage it is likely they get the ball back in position for another chance to score right away.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
